I stand up and salute Arizona for the implemented change! Finally, people got sick and tired of all the ILLEGAL immigrants and being known as the "Portal" for most of the ILLEGALS entering this country!
Arizona has the right to protect/defend/block or whatever on their border. That is not what has people furious. The problem is that they have institutionalized racial profiling as a way to combat illegal immigrants. So basically, if a person is of any Hispanic decent they would have to keep their papers with them at all times. That would also include thousands of Puerto Ricans. While I am sure that I just got a collective "So what." from all you little Lou Dobbs disciples out there, I will remind you that Puerto Ricans serve in the US Military. They defend your freedom. So when some fat Arizona cop has a PR soldier on the ground checking his papers, I hope he at least thanks him for his service.
Arizona has not provided us with a solution to illegal immigration,but has re-focused our attention on the problem.
While the borders are perceived as the core problem,it is the internal policies that are the bigger issue. Sealing the borders by land,sea,and air simply is not practical. Resourseful people will find a way in if they know a job awaits within.
Biometric national IDs and data banks combined with a thoughtful temporary worker permitting process could resolve and eliminate most illegal immigration. If illegals can't get jobs without proper identification,they will either get the proper documents or not come. They come for jobs,not siestas and welfare.
The issue of how to treat illegal immigrants that are already in the US is far more complex and their status would be revealed by a new national ID system. Asking 20 million people to leave would be very damaging to the US economy.Possibly those that have been in country for three years or more should be given some form of amnesty while newer arrivals are shown the door.
But thanks to Arizona,we're discussing the problem nationally.
Earlier this month, a group of Phoenix, Arizona based folks started handing out flyers announcing an event to coincide with Cinco De Mayo celebrations. The group called themselves The National Socialist Movement.
At first glance, one might assume that the word "Socialist" contained in a name would describe a group of Liberal thinking Americans who have come together for a common, but progressive cause.
"The proper, respectful way to describe a National Socialist, would be to say that we are American patriots," said National Socialist Movement spokesman J.T. Ready. "This is the premier white civil rights organization in the world."
In the flier that was mass distributed around the central region of Arizona, a call was made for May 5th to be transformed, at least in Arizona, to "Report An Illegal Day". The day should be set aside to fax or email Congress and demand that the border be secured. Local businesses are demanded to participate in e-verify and to turn in people to DHS and ICE when they are not found in the database.
"They don't celebrate the Fourth of July down in Mexico, so we don't expect Cinco de Mayo to be celebrated here," said Ready. "Our recruitment numbers are swelling. There are people coming forward who aren't scared to be called a name."
It is not my intention to rile anyone up, nor I am about to state that the group represents the mainstream Arizonan. At the same time, The Government of Arizona has taken a bold step, clearly admired by many crawling out of the woodwork, who are taking any and all opportunity to declare their own little war on illegal immigrants.
People like these bask in the attention paid to them. If polls are believed to be accurate, 70% of Arizonans fully supported SB1070, now signed into law. Tying a majority of people to those who are more blatant in their resolve to purge a state of people binded by race, is not unfair.
The counter argument always offered is that they are illegally in our country. Be that as it may, a great many people who stand to be targeted by this law are parents of children who are natural born citizens of this nation, under another law.
Many illegal parents have lived here from a few months to a few decades. Their children are quite legal. They have parents who have lived here without drawing any attention to themselves or to the fact that they are here illegally.
Have we become so callous a society that any majority of people are to be allowed to cast aside any and all concerns of a minority of people, simply because there are laws on the books stating that they have no right to be here?
There may be laws that support discarding humanity, but I wonder how some people look themselves in the mirror each morning.
Arizona "institutionalized racial profiling"? I've heard tell the law forbids it more strongly than the federal law it's copied from. I've also heard tell the Arizona law is only 16 pages long, not 2700--short enough for fact checkers to read. (Source for the latter, an Arizona caller to the Sean Hannity show.)
Illegals "come for jobs,not siestas and welfare"? So get rid of tax-paid welfare; leave welfare to generous people.
"At first glance, one might assume that the word "Socialist" contained in a name would describe a group of Liberal thinking Americans who have come together for a common, but progressive cause." No, a socialist is someone who wants to run other peoples' lives and be paid by taxes for doing so; bluntly, a slavemaster.
"Tying a majority of people to those who are more blatant in their resolve to purge a state of people binded by race, is not unfair." What about tying our President to "unrepentant terrorist" William Ayres and the "God **** America" reverend Wright--is that fair? (Having read one of Wright's sermons, I'll say that, like Arizona, he's trying to deal with perceived problems; I wouldn't be surprised if the preacher's a Christian. Hope he is. But however strongly the prophets of Israel from Moses and Elijah to our Lord Jesus and Saint John condemned Israel's sins, I'm not sure they'd have used Wright's most controversial language. They were almost always looking for repentance and mercy.)
When God set out to be nice to us sinners, He paid the full price Himself. "Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other." Otherwise, being nice to illegals is being nasty to legals.
With our aging population, this country will soon, if not already, be facing a lower level labor shortage, just like Europe and Japan have already. Adding to this, on the horizon will be the demand for a multitude of security forces to protect the country from home grown terrorists. Before we cut our nose off to spite our face, maybe we should consider a longer term strategy for the "illegals" in this country.
AndrewLohr wrote: "I've heard tell the law forbids it more strongly than the federal law it's copied from. I've also heard tell the Arizona law is only 16 pages long, not 2700--short enough for fact checkers to read."
You can't help it. You've probably never been pulled over by a cop who conveniently manufactured a reason to detain you. It's very hard to disprove that you were weaving, that you drove out of your lane, that you ran a stop sign, that you were speeding, or that you failed to fasten your seat belt.
It will all be a moot point anyway. Those who are unable to prove their legal status will be in jail awaiting a deportation hearing. The reason they were detained will never be protested.
Hey, it's okay. The door has been cracked open. Trashing the rights of those that some think should not have any rights, is the first step. By the time that your rights are infringed upon, it will be too late to do anything about it.
The precedent will have been established and rooted, that is unless the law is overturned, which I am confident it will be.
"So get rid of tax-paid welfare; leave welfare to generous people."
Sorry, but the fact is that the vast majority of those who have the means to be generous and charitable, rarely are, that is unless they are someone who is likely to be subjected to public scrutiny for whatever reason.
That is not to say that there are not generous people who will gladly write a substantial check if they can gain political favor that will allow them to be able to keep more money in their bank accounts.
"No, a socialist is someone who wants to run other peoples' lives and be paid by taxes for doing so; bluntly, a slavemaster."
Is it any wonder that people are so politically confused these days? No credible source would begin to substantiate your version of the word.
As to anyone supposedly trying to run other people's lives, if you were to truly infuse a little reality into your thinking, what would you call people who want to use the power of Government to force women to carry a baby to download status, to use the power of Government to mandate that children must pray each morning in school, or who vehemently would again, use the power of Government to deny two consenting adults of the same gender to be allowed to marry each other and to have that marriage recognized by applicable Government(s), to then go on to have the same rights and privileges that are afforded those couples of opposite gender?
Nucanuck, you are at least half right. What Arizona has done is not the answer, but it is something..which is more than our national leaders have accomplished.
Some..maybe even many, may call it "Racial Profiling."
However, you are not going to find a particular tree unless you are willing to venture into the forest.
I am white, Protestant and male. If I lived in upper New York state and authorities were looking for illegal Canadians I would expect to be detained, at least momentarily.
That's called common sense, not racial profiling.
Oh, I can understand the ill feelings that some legal residents must feel, but even they must understand, as well, those who are here illegally are going to attempt to blend in as well as they can, without regard to what they are putting an entire community through.
Some may use this new law to further their own agendas, on both sides of the issue.
Just remember, those who cry "Racial Profiling" may only be wanting to further incite an already explosive situation.
Happy Mother's Day to all it may concern,
"Sorry, but the fact is that the vast majority of those who have the means to be generous and charitable, rarely are, that is unless they are someone who is likely to be subjected to public scrutiny for whatever reason."
That's one of those lies and/or misleading statements you spew here so frequently, alpro.
Although it DOES apply to the Progressives and the Hollywoodland elite, it certainly doesn't apply to the "vast majority" of us...as you claim it does.
Literally everyone here has "the means to be generous and charitable". Even the illegal Mexicans send money home. Just because Progressives choose not to use those "means" to help others doesn't mean more conservative thinkers don't give as best they can. "Means" includes much more than mere money.
BTW alpro, the Arizona law is a mirror of federal law. So you are confident federal law will also be overturned? I thought not... That is why Dear Leader is full of hot air [to be generous] and is merely playing to his crowd of hangers-on by pontificating on the subject.
AndrewLohr, your definition of "socialism" is woefully ignorant. Socialism deals not with "slavemaster[s]," but seeks to ensure the citizens receive the benefits of common resources (ie. land, water, minerals) rather than allowing a few wealthy individuals to do so. It involves worker ownership and control of the means of production. In most cases, governments are established as a means of establishing this ownership. But that is not really relevant to the topic at hand.
I do not take issue with the Arizona government taking steps to secure its borders. After reading the bill, it appears that only those who are in violation of some other law are subject to enforcement of the new immigration standards. I am not familiar with Arizona's laws regarding probable cause for stopping someone, but in my experience, if police officers want to stop people, they can almost always find a suitable reason. I am not a lawyer, but it appears to me that this law does not enable law enforcement officers to legally stop people simply to check their immigration status. It is entirely possible that the language is too vague to ensure the protection of legal citizens.
What troubles me is the spirit of this law. The immigration issue is difficult. Personally, I feel it is important to remember that, above all other labels, illegal immigrants are people. Their lives are complicated just like ours, and the choices we make regarding them will reflect directly upon us as a nation.
Arizona = Police State.
That's the play-by-play on this cartoon.
I agree with a lot of what has been said by people on both sides of this issue, including a lot of what's been said in the posts above.
I don't think most of the people who wrote or support this law were/are intending to be racist.
In the end, we're all judged by our actions and not by our intentions.
I personally feel bad for the state of Arizona. I'd like to think I'd do things differently, but I do agree with an earlier sentiment that Arizona has done us all a favor in that they are getting us to talk about real solutions.
There has been a systemic national failure in immigration control. But I still wonder about the cost of success.
This law was written to mirror federal law, moonpie.
All it does, essentially, is make it a state crime to be in Arizona illegally. As a STATE crime it can be prosecuted by the state.
Used to be, LEGAL workers here were issued Green Cards and they carried them everywhere...just as we carry our Driver's License everywhere.
This "profiling" BS is exactly that...it is a red herring. Profiling criminals is a routine, every-day occurrence. What is the first thing a traffic cop asks for when he stops you? That's right...your "License and Registration".
If you are driving erratically, swerving, etc the cop would be considering you as a possible DUI or as a Text-er. That is probable cause for a stop -- and profiling. [Just because of your race or gender is NOT in that particular case.]
If ALL hijackers/bombers were identified as 18-30 yr old male Arabs [as they are], THAT would be profiling...AND IT WORKS. If we let it. [We could then leave Junior's tenny-runners on his feet and Granny's knitting needles in her hands.]
This law is for the safety of Arizona's citizens and LEGAL residents. Read the stats provided by canary [or others here] on Illegal Alien crimes in Los Angeles, for instance. Note the pathways used by illegal drug importers in Arizona. THEY and their supporters are the ones objecting to this law.
"What troubles me is the spirit of this law. The immigration issue is difficult. Personally, I feel it is important to remember that, above all other labels, illegal immigrants are people. Their lives are complicated just like ours, and the choices we make regarding them will reflect directly upon us as a nation."
I think moonpie's read on this cartoon is just right. Of course, Clay is the only one who can say for sure, but if cartoon's are left to the reader's interpretation, that's mine.
As for rolando's point about state law mirroring federal law, well that may be true, but control of the borders, immigration and customs is a federal responsibility alone. Giving those duties to state law enforcement will have a chilling effect in two ways.
First, it will undoubtedly lead to racial profiling. Police in Arizona will now demand more documentation from brown people than they will Caucasians. Be it a suspect in a crime, a witness, or an informant, it will not be incumbent on the police to question the citizenship status of anyone they may suspect of being an illegal immigrant. To ignore that suspicion would be negligence on their part.
The disparity in how legal citizens of the United States will be treated in Arizona under this new law is a blatant violation of 14th amendment. That amendment's equal protection clause requires states to provide equal protection under the law to all people within their jurisdictions. Equal protection translates into equal treatment, and this law will most certainly lead to a profoundly different treatment for Hispanics.
The other down-side of this law will be the damage it does to the effectiveness of the state police on almost all other matters- like fighting crime. Police in Arizona have worked diligently to gain the trust of the Hispanic community. That trust will be shattered by this law, and will only serve to discourage the full cooperation of that community with the police to prevent crimes or apprehend real criminals.
This is a lose/lose situation for the police of Arizona, and any officers who have their heads screwed on straight, know it.
Arizona's new law has absolutely NOTHING to do with border control, OllieH. That is a constitutionally-imposed federal duty -- one this administration [and the last] totally ignore. Nature [and politics] abhor a vacuum...and Arizona filled it by making it illegal under state law to be in the state illegally.
"Racial" profiling could be claimed about any traffic stop or other law enforcement action. The answer is simple; if you are breaking Arizona law by being there, go elsewhere or go to jail. If you are NOT in Arizona illegally, show the officer your photo ID, drivers license, Green Card, or whatever. I expect the officers will apply the law to everyone...and why not? An easy answer to that is to have State of Birth on the license.
Showing a photo ID is almost a requirement today upon buying something with a credit card. There is no loss of freedom in that...show them the ID or don't use the card.
If the Maricopa County jailees don't like Sheriff Arapio's [sp] treatment, they should stop doing illegal things that get them jailed.
The Arizona law will hardly dent the trust LEGAL immigrants have for our laws and our police officers. To make such a statement otherwise borders on irresponsibility and Chickenlittle-ism. LEGALS favor the law...they are safer with the illegals out of state and gone...and they know it.
This new law allows arresting officers to see the bad guys permanently taken off the streets for a change, instead of watching the revolving door our courts have become.
Rolando wrote: "BTW alpro, the Arizona law is a mirror of federal law."
US Code, Title 8, Chapter 12, Sub-chapter II, Part VIII, § 1321 thru § 1330 are the relevant Federal laws pertaining to illegal immigration.
Specifically, they are;
§ 1321. Prevention of unauthorized landing of aliens;
§ 1322. Bringing in aliens subject to denial of admission on a health-related ground; persons liable; clearance papers; exceptions; “person” defined;
§ 1323. Unlawful bringing of aliens into United States;
§ 1324. Bringing in and harboring certain aliens;
§ 1324a. Unlawful employment of aliens;
§ 1324b. Unfair immigration-related employment practices;
§ 1324c. Penalties for document fraud;
§ 1324d. Civil penalties for failure to depart;
§ 1325. Improper entry by alien;
§ 1326. Reentry of removed aliens;
§ 1327. Aiding or assisting certain aliens to enter;
§ 1328. Importation of alien for immoral purpose;
§ 1329. Jurisdiction of district courts;
§ 1330. Collection of penalties and expenses.
Will you be so kind as to pick any of the above applicable Federal laws that the Arizona law passed originally, or as has been amended to become, was based upon?
Please, feel free to point out one sentence in any of the above laws that allows anyone other than a fully trained immigration officer or person who has been empowered to hold immigration status hearings in a court of law, the power to demand of any person within the borders of these United States, citizen or not, that they are to provide proof of their legal status upon demand.
No officer in ANY of the 50 United States, nor is any State allowed to empower officers within their states to enforce any Federal law, without express permission and the granting of authority to do so by the Federal Government.
Further, if such authority is granted to any state, state legislatures are required to adopt Federal standards and training requirements for those granted authority to enforce Federal statutes.
Arizona has bypassed all the above -- part of agreements that were made long before you and I were an itch in our Father's pants, and has unilaterally passed a law superseding the scope of their authority.
And it will be on this basis that the law will be struck down in Federal court.
Mark my word.
Rolando wrote: "This law is for the safety of Arizona's citizens and LEGAL residents. Read the stats provided by canary [or others here] on Illegal Alien crimes in Los Angeles, for instance. Note the pathways used by illegal drug importers in Arizona. THEY and their supporters are the ones objecting to this law."
How quaint. I am being accused of supporting illegal drug importers.
The day that either of you provide any evidence to support your outlandish accusations on this or any other issue, much less those with any credibility to weigh, let's be sure to discuss it.
Lumping drug runners into the same category as those who are here to better their lives is a popular right-wing slant offered every time the subject of illegal immigration is discussed.
Drug runners live in Mexico, for the most part. Illegal immigrants live in the States. Their motivations, their hopes and dreams, and their reasons for being here, or slipping in and out under the cover of darkness, are as different as night and day.
The vast majority of illegal immigrants in this nation pose absolutely no threat to the safety of any Arizonan or any American.
And shame on you for suggesting otherwise.
Woody wrote: "I am white, Protestant and male. If I lived in upper New York state and authorities were looking for illegal Canadians I would expect to be detained, at least momentarily."
The only problem with your analogy is that Canadians enjoy a far better economic standard of living than we do. They would be backing up to come here seeking to make a better living for themselves.
There are many reasons that some do emigrate here to the states, but the least of those reasons involves any thought of seeking to make more money than they are able to in Canada.
Chicago has an immense population of Polish immigrants, who like their Hispanic peers, come from very impoverished circumstances.
Many of those have been caught up in criminal activity over the years. If Chicago or Illinois were to pass a similar law as Arizona did, requiring people to prove they are legal, that city would explode in protest. Your average Pole looks very much like your typical Caucasian American.
It all comes down to who may be targeted with increased scrutiny, and I still maintain that if white people, who make up the majority of people in this nation, were likely to be subjected to such scrutiny, regardless of rhyme or reason, the law in Arizona would NEVER have been discussed on the State House floor, much less passed.
And everyone knows that to be a fact, even if they don't care to acknowledge it.
I found this under Title VIII Of the U.S. Code about immagrants, aliens, and etc.
TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER II > Part V > § 1252c
Prev | Next
§ 1252c. Authorizing State and local law enforcement officials to arrest and detain certain illegal aliens
How Current is This?
(a) In general
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, to the extent permitted by relevant State and local law, State and local law enforcement officials are authorized to arrest and detain an individual who—
(1) is an alien illegally present in the United States; and
(2) has previously been convicted of a felony in the United States and deported or left the United States after such conviction,
but only after the State or local law enforcement officials obtain appropriate confirmation from the Immigration and Naturalization Service of the status of such individual and only for such period of time as may be required for the Service to take the individual into Federal custody for purposes of deporting or removing the alien from the United States.
The Attorney General shall cooperate with the States to assure that information in the control of the Attorney General, including information in the National Crime Information Center, that would assist State and local law enforcement officials in carrying out duties under subsection (a) of this section is made available to such officials.
Ask A Lawyer Online. Get an Answer ASAP!
Donations cover only 20% of our costs.
Search this title:
Title 8 RSS
PDF (1 pages)
No Update(s) Pending
Parallel authorities (CFR)
Prev | Next
Thank you Clara for providing that one.
The Federal immigration laws in Section 5 are much older laws, most of which were repealed or transferred to Section 8 many years ago.
The law you quoted is notable, and is still quite valid. It only empowers State and local law enforcement to arrest and detain only those who are here illegally, AND...not or...AND who have previously been convicted of a felony anywhere in the United States AND if they previously left the United States following their convictions.
In other words, State and local law enforcement are not allowed to do anything other than to turn them over to INS, IF THEY ARE GIVEN PERMISSION to detain them after the INS verifies their illegal status, and if they say they are coming to get them.
Rolando brought up Maricopa County, Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio. In a Washington Times article, he was quoted to have stated, "My message is clear: if you come here and I catch you, you're going straight to jail. I'm not going to turn these people over to federal authorities so they can have a free ride back to Mexico. I'll give them a free ride to my jail."
If indeed he has EVER arrested an illegal immigrant and has not followed the above law to the letter, he is violating Federal law. Clearly, he has and it's only a matter of time before he will be arrested and charged for this and other offenses. He is currently under Federal investigation for several illegalities, including repeated violations of this specific law.
In March of this year, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder made it clear that investigations into Sheriff Arpaio's oversight of the Maricopa Sheriff's Department, as well as other activities are "serious and ongoing."
I read the other day that there are several media outlets standing by to pay millions for any photo of Joe Arpaio in handcuffs, and even more if he is snapped wearing pink.
I assure you, the folks over at TMZ are salivating as we speak.
I'm not in favor of Arizona's new law. However, let's let Arizona govern Arizona. The last time I checked there still are fifty stars on the flag. If you guys don;t remember, those stars stand for sovereign States. And no the field won;t become red in my lifetime no matter how many progressive/socialists want it to be.
There ARE 50 states, but they rule only under those laws that aren't federal. This is pretty clear, up above.
As much as you'd like to have local control, I don't think the law enforcement branches of one single state can handle the complexities without dealing with the Federal Government.
Just think, all people will be moving to Chattanooga to escape harrassment in all the states and counties deciding on complete self rule. C:-)
Well, we could tatoo a lengthy history, visibly on everyone's back with the information needed, but tatoos can be altered so that wouldn't work.
We could reach into SciFi and implant something that would contain ALL the needed information. Now THAT would put us in a truly Orwellian world. C:-)
Just maundering around in my dopey state.
"Drug runners live in Mexico, for the most part. Illegal immigrants live in the States. Their motivations, their hopes and dreams, and their reasons for being here, or slipping in and out under the cover of darkness, are as different as night and day."
Definitely stated by one so dense and so out of it all he can do is quote a website's federal law stats. Well, go after Los Angeles, San Francisco and the city of San Diego, and for good measure the State of California too. After all, they implemented 'sanctuary city" laws in direct violation of the Fed Immigration laws AND thus ruined the state to boot because of their stupid, short-sighted policies. The city fathers-who-knew-it-all prevented the Feds (ICE) from doing their duty.
So tell us WE don't know what we're dealing with, those of us who have lived there, yet it is your endless studity that shows everyone exactly what we will get with those erroneous policies and views. The SW border states ARE a huge mess, the majority of LEGAL residents, of ALL races object to illegals jumping in front of the line. The states are bankrupt, the Drug Dealers, smugglers and their victims, many of them, DO LIVE in these US cities, in many of our neighborhoods. The violence that spills over to law-abiding US citizens in our neighborhoods has been horrendous.
Where do you get YOUR facts? Talk about imagination and cherry-picking from beloved Leftist sites and blogs. BTW, you from your sick, evil words above (7:00 am) are no Christian and no Expert on illegal immigration and its resulting issues.
PS: Millions of Canadians over the last 3-4 decades HAVE fled to the US, just like millions from every country on earth. WHO is fleeing TO the Congo, Sudan, Iran, China, Mexico and Central America, South America, Canada, North Korea, Greece or Saudia Arabia, etc, etc, etc? Give me the stats bubs, give me the stats.
PS: Socialism/Marxism/Communism/The Unions: 'friends and brothers' all, share one common goal and result; that is, they redistribute OTHERS wealth/savings/taxes and keep the lion's share for themselves, the "Elites" at the top. The notion they are for the "poor, working man/woman is so old and such a lie, the proof of the evidence of their lies is everywhere esp. in the Dem-controlled Congress and Senate). They are the TRUE definition of 'Slavemaster', because such a one enslaves the perceived weak ones-either immediately or slowly. In any case they are truly evil. Churches and so-called Christians who follow and believe the tripe and lies of "social justice", "justice for the poor minorities" and "all capitalists are evil and racist" are fakes and do not, as the words of one above prove, even adhere to Scripture. They are the wolves in sheep's clothing and should be treated as such.
Anonymight wrote: "The last time I checked there still are fifty stars on the flag. If you guys don;t remember, those stars stand for sovereign States."
While states do retain the right to a certain amount of Sovereignty, they do not have the right to invalidate the Constitutional rights of ANYONE. The States ratified the Constitution of the United States and they agreed to abide by the Constitution of the United States.
Ollie pointed that everyone is entitled to equal protection under the 14th Amendment.
The Due Process Clause guarantees that everyone is entitled to be treated the same under all of our laws. Certain steps are required before depriving any person of their life, liberty, or property.
The Amendment's Equal Protection Clause requires states to provide equal protection under the law to ALL people within their jurisdictions -- not just those who are legal to be here or who were born inside our borders. Everyone.
Arizona's law is in direct violation of that Amendment and those two specific clauses.
Our borders are out of control. This has been true for generations. We should offer amnesty for people who have been living here and contributing for years.
Employers who encourage illegal immigration by hiring without question then pay immigrants at starvation wages need to be reigned in. Sanctions are needed for these companies.
Finally, it is in our national interest to help Mexico get its economy in order. This will stem the tide of illegal immigration to the United States. However, we cannot do this until we get our financial house in order.
We eradicated the threat of the Soviet Union only to squander many of the gains. We now must set our financial house in order, as a matter of national security.
Working together, sacrificing together, we can make the needed changes.
God bless you all.
Canary wrote: "Definitely stated by one so dense and so out of it all he can do is quote a website's federal law stats. Well, go after Los Angeles, San Francisco and the city of San Diego, and for good measure the State of California too."
What is your point? You made outrageous claims, and several verifiable law statistics that I supplied trounced them. All you keep coming back with is the same type of innocuous claims that no more validate your claims now than they did then.
"So tell us WE don't know what we're dealing with, those of us who have lived there, yet it is your endless studity that shows everyone exactly what we will get with those erroneous policies and views."
Not that anyone would understand what you wrote up there, any time you may have lived somewhere doth not make thou an expert on a thing. I make no claim to be one either, but I am not in the habit of dispensing hype and disprovable claims, as is your constant habit.
"Where do you get YOUR facts? Talk about imagination and cherry-picking from beloved Leftist sites and blogs."
I challenge you to quote any "leftist site" or any blog that I have posted a link to, in an attempt to support any position I have taken at any time.
I know there's no need for me to hold my breath in anticipation that you will answer the challenge, because you have never done so at any time, when anyone has asked you to prove a thing.
"PS: Millions of Canadians over the last 3-4 decades HAVE fled to the US, just like millions from every country on earth. WHO is fleeing TO the Congo, Sudan, Iran, China, Mexico and Central America, South America, Canada, North Korea, Greece or Saudia Arabia, etc, etc, etc? Give me the stats bubs, give me the stats."
I hope that you will not be too disappointed if I refuse to dig up anything that you demand of me. You have to date refused to acknowledge any proof that contradicts your silly assertions by anyone who has offered such proof, and you never provide proof of anything you maintain to be of a factual nature when called upon to substantiate it.
It's a waste of time to debate anything with you.
"BTW, you from your sick, evil words above (7:00 am) are no Christian and no Expert on illegal immigration and its resulting issues."
1.) Who cares if you think I am not a Christian? I sure don't. Just because I do not believe that as a Christian, I am required to force people to live their lives by standards what I have set for my myself, it in no manner makes me "sick" or "evil." I live and let live. Who are you to judge me or anyone else for that matter? You're nothing but a sanctimonious jerk.
2.) I have yet to have declared myself to be an expert on any topic of discussion. And as always, you are absolutely free to discredit me at any time. Posting the equivalent of "Nanny nanny poo poo, you can't touch me," is about all you seem capable of mustering during a debate.
Maybe I'm uninformed. Seriously. How does the law, as written, violate the 14th Amendment? Does it single out hispanics on its face?
Correction to the above post;
I repeated Canary's word. I posted several, verifiable CRIME statistics when he made outrageous claims in regard to criminal activity committed by illegal immigrants...not "law" statistics.
It may be that he was attempting today to discredit the Cornell School of Law website that I quoted this day, understood by many to be a complete and reliable resource read up on our Nation's laws.
Who knows what "it" was trying to impart?
Anonymight wrote: "Maybe I'm uninformed. Seriously. How does the law, as written, violate the 14th Amendment? Does it single out hispanics on its face?"
You're kidding, right?
You're not one of those people that think that because nowhere in the bill, does the word "Hispanic" appear, or any other word used to describe a specific race of people, that it is totally benign, are you?
You know doggone well that Hispanics will be the race of people most likely to be queried for proof of their status and/or right to be in the State of Arizona, if the law survives.
So basically, you posit that if a law may or will violate the 14th amendment in some of its application, then it is unconstitutional? Nearly every law can violate the 14th Amendment as applied. That doesn't make it unconstitutional.
Again, I don;t support the law. That doesn't mean its unconstitutional. Its just a bad law. Like its Federal component.
It seems Arizona is merely asserting concurrent jurisdiction to illegal aliens who cross ITS border. You see its both a federal and a state border.
If you guys are worried about unconstitutional laws, worry about Holder's monkeying with Miranda. He seems to think some Congressional action can trump the Supreme Court. Maybe while they're at it they can dump the Patriot Act. But maybe not, I don't hear the left complaining about it anymore. They're too busy using it to arrest militia members who apparently haven't broken any laws.
Alprova..I am usually a big fan of yours. Your responses are always fact-based, if not quite lengthy.
However, in your response to my post Sunday morning, you seem to be arguing just for the sake of arguing.
You indicated my analogy was wrong when, in fact, your response was flawed.
What I was attempting to point out had little, if anything, to do with anyone's socio-economic situation. And nothing to do with the number of Polish immigrants in Chicago.
Okay..here it is in all of its less than politically-correctness..if the law is looking for illegal Mexicans, odds are they will be found among brown-skinned individuals.
Call me crazy..but it's the unvarnished truth..deal with it. No, I am not for violating anyone's constitutional rights. However, if the legal Mexican immigrants want to be mad at someone, let them be mad at those who are circumventing the law and placing them in this position.
But, seriously, Al..can we still be friends??
I'm off to my treatments, have a nice day,
Anonymight wrote; "So basically, you posit that if a law may or will violate the 14th amendment in some of its application, then it is unconstitutional?"
"Nearly every law can violate the 14th Amendment as applied. That doesn't make it unconstitutional."
How many white people do you think there are who are guilty of slipping into Arizona from Mexico?
Arguing that the absence of the word "Hispanic" in the legislation that became law is rather silly. Arguing that the law does not target Hispanics at all is ludicrous. Everyone knows what race of people are likely to contain the illegal immigrant population in the State of Arizona.
Equal protection and equal due process would only be applied if all people who find themselves inside Arizona's border, regardless of race, are to be asked for proof of their legal status. We know that this will not be the case as the law is written today.
It currently targets those of a certain race, with the most probable chance of being an illegal immigrant.
For the law to be fair and equal, it should be amended to require that every person who lives in Arizona or who passes through the State to apply for, receive, and have on their person, documentation as may be defined or acceptable to the State of Arizona, proving that they are legal to be in Arizona. Then, every person should be asked for that proof when accosted by an Arizona law enforcement officer.
Then you have a law that does not violate the 14th amendment.
I'd support the law then 100% because then EVERYONE would be considered guilty until proven innocent. I wouldn't have any desire to enter the State of Arizona though. Would you?
"It seems Arizona is merely asserting concurrent jurisdiction to illegal aliens who cross ITS border. You see its both a federal and a state border."
I still think your position is 99.9% dead wrong in this but by God you're eloquent in its defense.
Woody wrote: "What I was attempting to point out had little, if anything, to do with anyone's socio-economic situation."
That may be, but you can't overlook the socio-economic circumstance as the very reason that Hispanics emigrate here.
Using your example, it brings it all right back to race. If we were experiencing an influx, for any reason, of millions of illegal Canadians, then what race of people would likely be sorted through to find them and remove them? White people.
"And nothing to do with the number of Polish immigrants in Chicago."
White people would never settle for one minute such scrutiny if they were targeted in any manner similar to the scrutiny that Hispanics will be, or already are being scrutinized, to find and remove those who are in our country illegally.
This shouldn't be a concept that we disagree on.
People can say all day long that they support the law because it targets those who have violated other laws. But the simple fact is that the only reason they agree with it is because they will not be singled out and scrutinized to prove that they are not in violation of the law.
The sole reason they will not be subjected to any provision under the law, is because they are not Hispanic.
How could anyone agree with any law that would force someone to prove their innocence because a law enforcement officer may presume you to be guilty of a crime?
"No, I am not for violating anyone's constitutional rights. However, if the legal Mexican immigrants want to be mad at someone, let them be mad at those who are circumventing the law and placing them in this position."
Think about that for a moment.
If any state were to pass a law that would require white people who are stopped by law enforcement to be subjected to a Breathalyzer test because the vast majority of people who are caught driving while intoxicated are white, a fact by the way, would you use the same argument and defend the law in the same manner?
The law could be written without referring to any race, just like this one was, but off the record, police would know what race of people are most likely to be driving while intoxicated, and target them accordingly.
"But, seriously, Al..can we still be friends??"
These Illegals are criminals.. Why would anyone want a criminal in their neighborhood? As to their naturally born children? If they entered the country illegally, those kids should be just as illegal as they are especially when they decided to hoof it over the border at the last minute to drop their litter just so they could circumvent our immigration laws. Socialists and criminals rejoice!
I applaud the Arizona law and look forward to that state prospering because of the lack of social leeches draining their coffers.
Looking forward to being profiled in Arizona (I look hispanic, but I'm not)
Tennessee's law requiring me to wear a seatbelt is beyond 14th Amendment reproach. However, a police man or woman can use this law to pull over only African Americans who are not wearing their seat belts. This unconstitutional application of the seat belt law does not threaten the entire law itself. The law would remain constitutional despite its unconstitutional application. The remedy to the victims of the unconstitutional application remains with a jury in a civil rights lawsuit against the offending police officer, not in striking down the seat belt law.
So, while I think the seat belt law and the particulars of the Arizona immigration law are silly at best, they exhibit the broad sovereign power of States, and that, in and of itself is a good thing. Any time one government competes with another, individuals win.
The next question in my mind is how can the Arizona law be applied without offending the constitution. I imagine that during an encounter with law enforcement, the fact that a suspect cannot speak English would be a reasonable suspicion that the person might be here illegally. Of course there are many people who might be here legally that cannot speak English, but it still remains that it is reasonable that a person who cannot speak English would be more likely to be illegal than someone who can. Second, newly illegal aliens are more likely to be transient with no local roots or ties. So, if during an encounter with law enforcement if the suspect gave information that showed a lack of ties to the area, the officer could, in the totality of the circumstances, reasonable suspect that the person was an illegal alien. Third, suppose the suspect has MS-13 or other central American gang tattoos? There are many clues that separate hispanic citizens from illegal aliens.
You see, even here in Tennessee, an officer can ask you to show your identification during a traffic stop. I don't like it, but its a fact. If you don't he will arrest you and take you to the jail. The nanny state created by the leftists that make us get government permission to do all sorts of things like work or drive or many other things requires us to keep our papers on our persons to prove our identity when the government comes calling. We have local government IDs, State IDs and Federal IDs.
Arizona is taking leftism to the next logical step: to breathe their air requires government permission. When the constitution is interpreted to have no real limitations on the government - thanks to the big government lefties and big government righties - a heavy handed government is what you get. Just wait - this Arizona law is coming to a state near you.
Alpo -- I prefer to go by the statements of those who wrote Arizona'a laws regarding illegal immigrants, not someone's cherry-picking of one-liners. The authors have three times SUCCESSFULLY defended those laws against all comers...the same fools who fight the current law. ALL of the objectors' complaints were denied by the court...the same complaints they use now. That is called legal precedence and it will win.
Short form? It the state law is found illegal, the federal law must also be changed...something with little to nochance.
"Just think, all people will be moving to Chattanooga to escape harrassment [sic] in all the states and counties deciding on complete self rule."
This from our resident poor-little-old-lady-in-waiting -- and suspected poseur -- Clara [belle].
She has it exactly right...except for them moving only to Chattanooga. Arizona's aim is to remove ALL illegal aliens from the state, from their welfare rolls, from their schools, and from their emergency rooms. With this law the state will succeed.
A problem for Tennessee with all those illegals flooding us?? We should then take a hard look at Arizona's law and adopt it. Let the illegals then flee to Georgia or Florida or anywhere but here, including to Mexico! Now there's a novel thought...send the home.
In answer to someone's comment up there about illegals being people, too...I say, they are lawbreaking "people" and deserve ONLY what other lawbreakers get.
Alpo spewed, "How quaint. I am being accused of supporting illegal drug importers."
Hey, baby, if the foo s...oops...SHOE FITS, wear it. Pity those wonderful people you so adore and fawn over don't come beating on your door. Why don't you send them some of that money you claim to be making hand over fist instead of wanting to force US to support them?
You are taking my post personal. You do that a lot then get all huffy. Well, I see nothing "beautiful" or "pleasingly old-fashioned" about drug-runners, either -- although evidently you do since you referred to supporting them as "quaint".
Funny...we called that "being a dirtbag" for decades. So you now admit to supporting "dirtbags", do you alpo? Or do you waffle in true Prog fashion by citing "accused of"?
I pay hundreds of dollars for a plane ticket so I can get stopped at the gate, ordered to take my shoes off and/or clothes, have a wad go over my body, have a dog sniff my crotch, and have my baggage gone through. I get stopped by game wardens, who check my vehicle for a loaded rifle or ordered to check my fishing boat's live well to see how many fish are in there, and what size they are. I can go on and on, but you get the point. Get over what Arizona is doing. They are enforcing laws that the government won't enforce to save their state from the ruins of a half a million illegals. It's is the old, too many people in the cart than are pulling the cart, and it will be coming to your state soon.
anonymight said, "They're too busy using it to arrest militia members who apparently haven't broken any laws."
You're dead on with that one. That "Christian" militia foofaraw sure died a quick and quiet death, didn't it? All the sensation appeal went away when they couldn't be held for actually breaking any law.
Wagging the dog, plain and simple.
Just another reason for going to the barricades...
The best way to prove your birth in America? Get a passport. They are relatively cheap and worth ten times the cost, when needed.
Their value continues even AFTER they expire...once proven on it, always proven.
Sailorman wrote: "Al
I still think your position is 99.9% dead wrong in this but by God you're eloquent in its defense."
Thank you, and I absolutely respect alternative opinions. At least most of us can discuss it calmly and rationally. I'm trying to be a little kinder to folks, because it ruins discussions when things get personal.
FPSE wrote: "These Illegals are criminals.. Why would anyone want a criminal in their neighborhood?"
It's quite likely that you have violated a law or two in your days on Earth. Have you ever been convicted of a traffic offense?
"As to their naturally born children? If they entered the country illegally, those kids should be just as illegal as they are especially when they decided to hoof it over the border at the last minute to drop their litter just so they could circumvent our immigration laws. Socialists and criminals rejoice!"
Not worth the time or trouble to address. You're merely throwing a flame out there to see what you can stir up.
"I applaud the Arizona law and look forward to that state prospering because of the lack of social leeches draining their coffers."
The law will never survive Federal court.
"Looking forward to being profiled in Arizona (I look hispanic, but I'm not)"
Well good for you.
I've been reading comments here for a long time, more than a year. I've been on the sidelines and don't expect to comment too often.
Something that alprova said in his 6:54 post, though, makes a lot of sense to me - even though I disagree with much of his reasoning on other issues.
He said, "I'm trying to be a little kinder to folks."
I've seen in the past where alprova has done some name-calling and acted badly. I've also seen him apologize and admit his mistakes. I can respect all of that. And I can respect his comitment to his ideals.
I can also say it shames me when I see worse from people on "my" side.
I'm not holding myself up as an example in life. I am a sinner to the core. I am guilty of spite, envy, greed... you name it.
But I believe this: Christians need to separate Church from Hate.
Let me say it again. Christians need to separate Church from Hate. This was a big teaching of Jesus. We are all sinners here. Not one of us is worthy of salvation. So when I see people who profess to be Christian try to humiliate and belittle others, it saddens me.
But I will confess this, too. Sometimes when I see someone belittle someone I disagree with, I feel good... then I feel shame for both of us. I hope they do, too.
Back to this issue now. I don't believe we are helping the Mexicans in the long run by allowing them to come here illegally. I understand why they come. I understand why people hire them. Both sides are breaking the law all because we want cheap burgers, cheap fruit, cheap carpets, cheap construction, cheap labor. It's harder for Americans like me to make a good wage when competing against someone who makes less than minimum wage.
Long ago, when we had unlimited resources, maybe it made some sense to let anyone into the country. Times are different. We can't take care of ourselves anymore. We need to tighten our belts. We need to get lean.
I think rolando's got a great partial solution to this problem. Let's make everyone get a passport. I'll be glad to show mine at Walmart when I buy my milk.
Is Affirmative Action racial profiling?
Me, a poseur? I had a good laugh at that.
You and Canary obviously never read the interpretation of your debating skills that appeared in the "Nashville" cartoon, through the good offices of someone named sd.
I'm eternally grateful to him/her, as I never took the subject up in high school or elsewhere.
This is what (sd) wrote in the the post on May 5, 2010 at 10:29 p.m. ...
"People seem genuinely curious about Canary, partly because she uses
'ad hominem and ad lapidem attacks',
and they want ammo to do likewise, but also because she uses a lot of anecdotal evidence to bolster her arguments.
I had to look it up and I advise you both to do so, as well.
I posted the interpretation for the benefit of others who might not remember their high school Latin.
An end to cant and a turn to conscience.
Now there, brother, is a novel cause to which we might all pledge ourselves.
~~Carlyle, Past & Present (1843)
An end to cant and a turn to conscience.
Now there, brother, is a novel cause to which we might all pledge ourselves.
~~Carlyle, Past & Present (1843)
~~Carlyle, Past & Present (1843)
Anonymight wrote: "Tennessee's law requiring me to wear a seatbelt is beyond 14th Amendment reproach."
And why is that? Because EVERYONE is required to wear one.
"However, a police man or woman can use this law to pull over only African Americans who are not wearing their seat belts."
"The next question in my mind is how can the Arizona law be applied without offending the constitution. (sentences re: can't speak English, no local ties or roots, and tattoos snipped) There are many clues that separate hispanic citizens from illegal aliens."
You can't look at a Hispanic and know his or her status.
"You see, even here in Tennessee, an officer can ask you to show your identification during a traffic stop. I don't like it, but its a fact. If you don't he will arrest you and take you to the jail."
To be more specific, you are required under law, as every driver is well aware of, that you must have your operator's license in your possession at all times you are operating a motor vehicle. I'm not sure about Tennessee, but in Georgia our insurance coverage must be verifiable in the State database, or your vehicle will be towed.
If you are not driving a motor vehicle, you are not required to have either.
How is this comparable to what is required under the Arizona law? It doesn't compare, nor are the consequences the same if you happen to not have proof required on you that you are legally allowed to be in front of that officer.
"The nanny state created by the leftists that make us get government permission to do all sorts of things like work or drive or many other things requires us to keep our papers on our persons to prove our identity when the government comes calling. We have local government IDs, State IDs and Federal IDs."
I don't. I must be living off the grid.
"Arizona is taking leftism to the next logical step..."
Rolando wrote: "Alpo -- I prefer to go by the statements of those who wrote Arizona'a laws regarding illegal immigrants, not someone's cherry-picking of one-liners."
Thank you for confirming that the law was not based upon a Federal law, as has been repeated by many, but never proven by a soul.
"The authors have three times SUCCESSFULLY defended those laws against all comers...the same fools who fight the current law. ALL of the objectors' complaints were denied by the court...the same complaints they use now. That is called legal precedence and it will win."
I'll await the legal challenge(s). This one is more than a little outside the box.
The previous laws, defended in court that you refer to were: 2004 Proposition 200 which limited public benefits to illegal aliens, the 2005 Human Smuggling Act, and the 2007 requirement that employers must use E-Verify to screen employees prior to hire.
I have no problem with any of them. Any illegal immigrant who comes her seeking only to take advantage of public benefits such as welfare, are indeed a burden and that is not cool at all. Anyone who would seek to smuggle immigrants into any State for nefarious purposes needs to see the inside of prison for the rest of their life. And last, E-verify is a fantastic means to assure that jobs are not being denied to those who have a legal right to work.
"Short form? It the state law is found illegal, the federal law must also be changed...something with little to nochance."
Again, what Federal law? There is no Federal law that that Arizona law was based upon. None even come close.
You keep referring to a hypothetical.
Rolando inquired: "Why don't you send them some of that money you claim to be making hand over fist instead of wanting to force US to support them?"
I haven't been claiming to be making money "hand over fist." I'm just making more than I was there for awhile.
And you Sir are still being 100% supported by those who actually put money into the coffers from which your check is drawn, so to coin a phrase, you really don't have a dog in this hunt. Quit barking as if you do.
Yesterday I was in Wal-Mart returning some things without a receipt. The lady in front of me, (hispanic) was doing the same. The WM employee asked to see her ID. She acted like she did not hear the employee. The employee insisted on seeing a drivers license or a state issued ID. She fumbled around and found something that satisfied the employee. I immediately thought about this string of post and I wondered if I would be asked the same thing when I reached the front of the line. I was asked to show some ID and I gladly showed my DL.
The WM employee was just doing her job but the hispanic lady could have felt she was being profiled. I believe this will be the way it will go in Arizona for the most part. And if they can't show proof, such as a state issued DL/ID or passport then they should be retained until it can be settled.
I have other opinions as to what should be done once convicted but that will be for another day.
To Reaganwasright: That was a very good post and I appreciate the way you said it. I agree with you totally.
For those few still reading this thread, this is offered without comment:
"Thank you for confirming that the law was not based upon a Federal law..."
In your wet dreams did I ever confirm such a ridiculous and unsubstantiated leap of illogic as that one, alpo. The author is the one who said it...he knows a darn sight better than you.
BTW, that was part of the contract I and my future employer signed up front. Sort of a kinda of pre-nup type of thing.
Still irks you that I had the sense to get a contract and you didn't... You, after all, are the very one who said that military retirees became "a drag on the economy" and were "a dead weight" on the taxpayers. Or something very much like it...you certainly meant it. Oops. Gotcha.
alpo said, "I'll await the legal challenge(s). This one is more than a little outside the box."
The challenges are already in the past, al baby.
Check this one out -- it says a lot about those "Challenges" of which you speak...http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/11/ariz-referendum-drives-targeting-new-law-dropped/?test=latestnews
(This is for 'reaganwasright' but now he's dead and gone and wrong):
Anyone who could state what you did, does not have a relationship with ALL of the Lord's Word-or is a Pretender himself. Below, I quote from a Psalm (song-prayer) of the Warrior-King David, who was close to His heart. Taken in context with all that Yeshua speaks of, condemning Evil, Lucifer and his followers is not only acceptable, but it's our duty in standing up for Truth. You need to ask for discernment here, because many obviously do NOT know who the Great Pretender really is and how he deceives so many.
A Psalm of David: 101
"I am singing of grace and justice, I am am singing to you Adonai. I will follow the path of integrity; when will you come to me? I will run my life with a sincere heart within my own house. I will not allow before my eyes any shameful thing. I HATE those who act crookedly; what they do does not attract me. Deviousness will depart from me, I will NOT tolerate evil. If someones slanders another in secret, I will cut him off. Haughty eyes and proud hearts I cannot abide. I look to the Faithful of the Land, so that they can be my companions; those that live lives of integrity can be servants of mine. No deceitful person can live in my house, no Liar can be my advisor. Every morning I will destroy all the wicked of the land, cutting off all evildoers from the city of Adonai".
(If we in America had paid better heed, as David learned to do, we and this country would not be full of the filth and the stain on this land we now have to contend with. No listen, no obey people. No more Blessings).
"God of vengeance, Adonai! God of vengeance appear..how long are the wicked, Adonai to triumph? They pour out insolent words, they go on bragging, these evildoers...my God is my Rock of Refuge...He repays them as their guilt deserves, He will cut them off with their own evil, Adonai, our God will cut them off..."
Comments by alprova (archives: 823 (view all)
In no particular order:
Alpie's smug, bragging and perverted sayings: with NO apologies, EVER to those who are brave enough to out him and his evil rantings:
"That's hilarious. You could man up and accept the fact that you cannot come up with any proof of all regarding these supposed increased taxes that are supposedly plaguing tea-baggers. It's a farce.
I don't like doing this, because I find making comparisons to others arguably a waste of time, but Sarah Palin has her followers too.
Be they male, female, or something in-between, her followers are likely unable to engage in an intelligent conversation, are loveless, sexless, and horribly, hopelessly...horny. The woman is eye candy and nothing more.
Clara wrote: "What I am expressing is the belief that the sexual expression in any form of homosexual, heterosexual, and bisexual sex, as long as it is consensual, and a true expression of attachment and love, cannot be wrong. Love, in any form, DOES NOT HURT." Very well said Clara. (gushed alpie)
To all those who think that being gay is a choice, consider the issue for a moment.
If you readily accept the notion that it is a choice to be gay, then being straight is also a choice. It cannot be any other way, if that is what you truly believe.
It's an illogical thought process to think that people choose to be attracted to what turns them on. You don't choose what makes you drool like a baby. It just is.
I'm hoping to write a check to Uncle Sam next year for double what I wrote this year. Why? Because it will absolutely be an indication that I had a fantastic year of earnings.
Today, I am writing the largest check to the IRS that I have written in 6 years, and I am happy as can be that I am. It tells me one thing: I made more money than I have made in the past six years.
I hope I write an even larger check next year.
The Republicans made a very bad mistake when they dismantled the tax rates to reward those who have more and earn more. The rich are spoiled rotten. Like it, don't like it -- it's the freaking truth.
Extremists here in the South were willing to kill fellow Americans to defend their beliefs and customs. What makes the Confederate Soldier any different than Muslim extremists who are now doing fighting for their beliefs and customs?
(comment from CNN political analyst, Roland Martin: same as above, almost word for word copied)
Rolando wrote: "Yeah, al, you always tell people to "shut up" in the interests of stopping folks from talking about something outside your ken."
Actually, you are the very first to have earned the honor of being told to "shut-up," not that I was under any illusion that you would. It's so Christian of you to pick on women all the time.
The above work of art is destined to become an instant classic on Google Images.
The longer I stare at it, the more chills it sends up my and down my spine .(referring to Clay's cartoon depicting a Republican man dressed as a hooker/stripper)
I couldn't care less about history. Haven't you received that message yet? I'm talking today my friend.
Tea-Partiers are a conglomerate of angry white people who absolutely cannot deal with the fact that Barrack Obama -- a man of color, was elected as President, metaphorically shoving them to the back of the proverbial bus and they are angry.
(re: Teapartiers): It is driving the reputation of the group into the ground politically, spiritually, and the more I see it, the more convinced I am that the majority of these people are as equally likely to be as race resistant as those who have always existed in the Republican Party.
What's the old saying? You can't polish a turd.
Why don't you worry about your own soul? Mine is intact, hardly in need of any evaluation or redress according to your overly evangelical standards, and I sleep like a child every night because I know that my heart is where it should be. (yeah, an arrogant child)
Perception is reality, and people are judged by the company they keep. Racism is alive and well and it is festering and growing among those who call themselves "Tea-Partiers."
It happened and rather than to defend those clowns, you should denounce them or I stick to my original charge that you tea-bagging defenders are all a bunch of closet racists, hell bent on starting a new faction of the KKK.
(note: "tea-baggers" is a hmosexual/bisexual derogatory term used by the worst, lowest scum in America, usually the Left. Since alpie frequents a homo/bisexual website frequently to comment, although he denies HE is the 'alprova' posting there, it stands to reason he also is a pervert, see below)
Reddit: the site in question, is hardly "perverted," that is...unless you intentionally seek access to certain segregated content that does exist on it. (which he does, by his comments) Like any other site that allows people to post freely and with little moderation, people are quite free to be rather raunchy, rude, and rambunctious.(yep, that's alpie all right)
Stick that in your peace pipe and smoke it.
"Keep laughing all you want.
This is no joke." Yes it is. You're free to hold any opinion on earth, but I caution you to be VERY careful what you type. You have already posted what could easily be determined to be threats of violence in a public forum. (this is what the Left resort to every time we disagree with their lies)
The thought that all of about 600 senior citizens, who represent the core of what may be left of the Tea-Party, are threatening to form a Militia, is more than hysterical.
My goodness, many of you folks couldn't afford to pony up the dough to pay to hear Sarah Palin deliver a speech that was hand-written on her left palm. Where are you going to get the money to fund a war?
"This is just the first step in ruining Insurance companies so the government will have to step in and save the day by making a state run Healthcare system."
If you believe that, then you're totally off your rocker. Talk about wishy-washy.
I have absolutely no response for the above. It is pure fantasy, without any basis whatsoever, and among the most ludicrous of accusations I have ever read. And I'm the idiot? (yes, you are, nice of you to admit it)
Folks, the many premises involved and that are a part of the passed health care legislation are not very hard to wrap your brain around, if you have a brain to begin with that has not been turned into mush by the Chicken Little's.
alpie: Angry white people of this nation, who feel that their country has been hijacked by a black man, have relentlessly worked to prevent our President from fulfilling any of the promises he made when running for President, and tonight, maybe for the first time since Obama was elected, they are scared.
(an apologist for Socialists/Left-Progs) You call the President a "communistic non-believer." Is it your contention that all people who are considered to be Socialist or Communistic are automatically heathens by default?
I mean gee, if all people who attend church have attitudes and platitudes similar to those that you express on a regular basis in this forum, then who on earth would want to visit your church, or any of them for that matter?
To suggest otherwise is just as laughable as it was when GWB began pushing his agenda of diverting Federal money to faith based charities in his failed quest to replace and shut down social programs that the Government has provided to those in need.
(To Rolando) Thank you for your service to our country, but that ended, according to you, two decades ago. You are now a leach who criticizes the very Government that has been extending it's teat to you for at least four decades, paying your bills, and that now stands ready to pay for YOUR health care expenses now that you no longer serve anyone.
Rolando? He typeth with a forked fingers. The man has his socialized health care plan, bought and paid for. So who cares what he thinks? He's a hypocrite.
You have NEVER, not once, responded to any challenge to back up those little turds you drop in here. You refuse to give anyone a courtesy flush either.
Mountain Joe? He talks a good game. All used car salesmen do.
Nurse? Clueless is your middle name. I've stood my ground with more offerings of proof to back up my words than most people in here have ever tried to offer, including yourself.
It's very easy to sum up the Republican/Tea-bagger/Conservative positions into two sentences. No one has a right to health care. one only has a right to die if they cannot afford health care.
I'm sick to death of Conservatives and their hypocrisy.
How much heroin are you freebasing these days?
Please post one story of Canadians marching in Ottawa in protest of their "Socialist" Government, demanding that Capitalism be instituted across the board. And what the hell, find one such story or reference to such an instance in the past 50 years. (I lived there and know what the truth is-you can't find it from a State-run media and from alpie either)
alpie: Here we go again. If I disagree with you, it's because I "hate" you. Would you like a little block of cheese to go with your whine?
By all means, put on your halo. Just don't think it glows. (never mind all the hateful diatribes he's posted the last year)
bookieturnersghost wrote: "Come November, the overwhelming majority of Amercian citizens will deal with it. And, we cannot wait."
Statements like the above are simply laughable. They're meaningless.(the smug Elitist-Prog opines again-hatefully)
Do you ever offer any of your own thoughts Rolando? I mean, gee...we can read this same crap on Conservative, Tea-bagging, or Republican websites and blogs across the land.
15,000 idiots dressed like peacocks and holding signs while marching on Washington, D.C. and 600 attendees in Nashville is no indication of any widespread movement to "take back" anything, much less a country. (regarding Conservatives, Christians, seniors, politicos and parties of diverse Americans)
I wrote: "You don't love your country. You love your wallet."
Mountain Joe wrote: "Ah, thanks for the reminder that canary isn't the only one to get personal when he is losing an argument." (I don't get personal because I'm losing any argument-I just get face-to-face, mano-a-mano-personal because I can.)
I'm not losing any argument. And my observation is sound. (smug and arrogant-again)
First of all, I'm not convinced that you pay enough in taxes that so much as a penny would ever reach my wallet, and second, I have been in business for myself and an employer most of my adult life. As such, I have paid more than seven figures in various taxes over the years to the Government. (still braggin)
I don't want or need a thing from your wallet. But there are people out there currently who do have a need for a little help, so screw you, your attitude, and the pedestal you spin on.
I've never wished anyone bad luck, but you are in dire need a taste of some bad Karma, just to adjust that attitude a little. It did wonders for me.(wonderful Christian, he says he is, a real work of art)
Who cares? It's not Madison's Country anymore. The worms picked over his bones eons ago. Most of the Founding Fathers were slave owners, and we all know how that turned out in terms of dividing a nation. (and such a patriot and lover of his country)
Arguing the Constitution on every frigging topic related to politics is like arguing 16th century religion or 16th science, in my humble opinion.
Mark my word. By November of this year, everyone will be saying, Hey...whatever happened to them tea baggers? (don't hold your breath, you'd be wrong)
alpie: Why not piss into a 60 mph gust of wind? You'd be far more productive than you are to argue over something that will not change or be changed to suit your idealistic, utopian world that will never exist. (speaking of Utopia-his Communist/Progressive kind)
Come down to Earth. It's not that bad. (oh yes it is, for 99% of its inhabitants who live in Reality)
I've said it before and I'll say it now. We've seen the ruination that Capitalism can cause, left unchecked. It's time for a little Socialism to take roots to even things out for a while. (And you naives believe the other claptrap he writes too? This is WHO he is in all his Fake glory. THIS pretender is NO Christian who follows Jesus)
I wish I had time to watch the meeting tomorrow. I'm betting that the President is going to blister some hind end tomorrow, without a teleprompter, with a smile on his face, and I'm betting that he will hand the Republicans their cajones on a silver platter. (didn't happen, wrong again)
Proof once again that folks who consider themselves to be conservative, right-wingers, or flat out Republicans, are just that far out of touch with reality. Y'all care about those unborn babies all day long, but human life isn't worth much when they start walkin' and talkin.' (has alot of EVIDENCE on that doesn't he?)
Karma is a beotch. You'll eat your own words one day, I promise you. What goes around, comes around. (better look in the mirror, bub)
alpie: Are you suggesting that Communists, who tend to believe that societal wealth should be controlled, up to and including spreading it across the board to all people, and who believe in a classless, stateless and oppression-free society, would resort to 'murder' in order to enforce their beliefs? (Uh, yes we are and all those millions of WITNESSES throughout the last 100 years will also attest to that. Many, still living witnesses today. Doesn't pay to spout a washed version of History does it?)
They might 'fight' for it, but murder to achieve it? That's rather unlikely. (this is the 'sum total' of this perv-sexual man's take on History. Stalin, Mao, Che, Castro NEVER murdered their own people-millions of them. No, WE are just imagining it all. I rest my case-Evil)
Rolando quoted part of Matthew 10:14. The entire passage reads, "If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town." I wonder if Rolando understands the entire premise behind that particular verse.
(Here he attempts to pervert and explain this verse) : Many churches believe that gentiles must not have the gospel brought to them until the "Jews" have refused it, based on writings contained in Matthew. Others believe that when all people are presented with the "Gospel" and have either accepted or rejected it, Christ will come to claim all believers. (wrong)
This is a widely quoted verse that missionaries hold near and dear to their hearts. (so?) "Apostles" are being directed what to do in strange towns and cities. They are being directed how to act towards those who refuse the Gospel.
(Here he completely perverts the context and alludes that the literal readers of Scripture were/are like Hitler, who btw, was never a Follower of Jesus or His words):
It's the tip of the iceburg and a good hint as to why at one time in this world, Jewish people, who had personally never harmed a soul on earth, were herded like cattle, pushed into gas chambers or ovens, and then were mercelessly murdered.
And the Bible gave them the green light to do it, or so they thought.
It's rather alarming to think that many people have no problem condemning zealots who take the Qu'ran a little too seriously, overlooking the simple fact that our own Bible is equally as controversial, and has been used to justify uncountable and unspeakable acts of holy wars in their own right...er wrong. (He gives himself away again as a complete Fake-no true Christian would ever say or believe that garbage-the Q'uran and the Torah/Bible are night and day).
someone PLEASE...prove any of the above to be incorrect. I don't think it can be done."
(end of quotes)
*(my words in parentheses)
Rolando thinks he offered something new and delicious:
"For those few still reading this thread, this is offered without comment: [Link snipped] "
I guess you didn't read the last half of the article. Had you done so, as I did last evening, you would have seen;
"The four legal challenges filed so far in U.S. District Court in Phoenix have been randomly assigned to different judges. Several major civil-rights groups are expected to file another challenge as early as this week."
Rolando wrote: "Still irks you that I had the sense to get a contract and you didn't..."
Not at all, but you just keep on justifying and believing whatever makes you sleep good at night. It won't change the facts of the matter one iota.
You are 100% taxpayer supported, just as the welfare recipients that you loathe, are in turn supported. Hey...I'm not saying that you are a bad person. But you look a little more than silly when you attempt to trash those who receive their support from the Government, when in fact, you have Government funds deposited in your own bank account each and every month.
"You, after all, are the very one who said that military retirees became "a drag on the economy" and were "a dead weight" on the taxpayers."
I said no such thing. But ask your wife to see if she can dig up the relevant quote that proves that I did use those EXACT words you put in quotation marks.
"...Or something very much like it...you certainly meant it. Oops. Gotcha."
Uh huh...thats' what I thought. Neither of you can argue a point, and you both always run from your own words, but apparently you have all kinds of time to look up and quote mine.
I'm honored. I'm obviously doing something right.
Canary wrote: "(note: "tea-baggers" is a hmosexual/bisexual derogatory term used by the worst, lowest scum in America, usually the Left. Since alpie frequents a homo/bisexual website frequently to comment, although he denies HE is the 'alprova' posting there, it stands to reason he also is a pervert, see below)"
1.) If the use of the word "tea-baggers" is limited in use by only "hmosexual/bisexual" people, then pray tell how you know so much about it? Hhhmmmm?
2.) For the second time, Reddit dot com is not a "homo/bisexual" website, and I have maybe a couple of dozen comments posted on the site over a span of at least a year, and certainly none in sections of the site that may be considered immoral in nature. Why would you lie about something that can be verified in less than a minute? My username on the site is "alprovan." Anyone is free to look up my posts. They are all there.
I urge anyone to go to the site and to check it out. It's a cool site to visit when you get bored. For certain, the site contains just about everything you could imagine, and then some. That is not to say that my use of it is as you claim it is Canary.
I couldn't care less what you believe. If anyone is gullible enough to consider you credible in the least, and believes that I am a "pervert" based on your word, then I won't lose any sleep over that either.
All you've done in the span of eight posts, is to prove that anyone who would dare spend a minute discussing anything at all with you hereafter, is dealing with someone who's mind has gone completely off the grid.
And Clara has you pegged right. If nothing else, you are absolutely entertaining.
alpo, it is a shame, but you have no shame. All liars, by commission or omission, should have the decency to be ashamed...as you should be.
I cite these two directly related sentences of mine that your "cited" [yeah, right]...
"You [alpo], after all, are the very one who said that military retirees became "a drag on the economy" and were "a dead weight" on the taxpayers. Or something very much like it..."
So what part of the last sentence there did you NOT understand, alpo baby? Or will you ignore that question as you so often do?
Using YOUR tactic, I could as easily snip yours so you say, "...I did use those EXACT words you put in quotation marks." I, then, would change the meaning of your sentence as you changed mine. Good luck with that lying tactic of yours...you use it a lot [to poor effect].
So you ARE still irked over my calling you out for calling military retirees a drag on the economy and a burden to the taxpayers the day of their retirement, I see. That really must have hurt you to actually thank me for MY military service; I can hear your teeth gnashing from here...LOL
But neither I nor the rest of us need or want thanks from the likes of you...and we sure as Hell didn't give up twenty years and more [or even two or three or even a month] just so you could mouth off about how rotten the United States is. Oh, you have that right because we guaranteed it to all US citizens and LEGAL residents...call it a freebie from us to you.
Between that and the contract I signed for recompense after 40-odd years of true and faithful service to our country, you must be peeing blood.
Rolando wrote: "alpo, it is a shame, but you have no shame. All liars, by commission or omission, should have the decency to be ashamed...as you should be."
Look in the mirror if you are seeking to call someone a liar. You do it regularly and you have never expressed any shame for it.
" "You [alpo], after all, are the very one who said that military retirees became "a drag on the economy" and were "a dead weight" on the taxpayers. Or something very much like it..." "
Your perceptions are not fact. Not in a hundred years will you put those words under my fingers.
"So what part of the last sentence there did you NOT understand, alpo baby? Or will you ignore that question as you so often do?"
I'm not going to play games with you Ronnie. Post the proof that I wrote those words or shut-up and move on.
"Using YOUR tactic, I could as easily snip yours so you say, "...I did use those EXACT words you put in quotation marks." I, then, would change the meaning of your sentence as you changed mine. Good luck with that lying tactic of yours...you use it a lot [to poor effect]."
If you want to combine fragmented words and make up your own sentences and insert quotations in them for kicks, then knock yourself out. It's no reflection on me.
"So you ARE still irked over my calling you out for calling military retirees a drag on the economy and a burden to the taxpayers the day of their retirement, I see. That really must have hurt you to actually thank me for MY military service; I can hear your teeth gnashing from here...LOL"
Ronnie, you and your spouse are legends in your own minds. This is twice that you have admitted to posting fabrications to attempt to make a point.
Clearly, the two of you are the ones bothered, and your posts prove it.
"But neither I nor the rest of us need or want thanks from the likes of you...and we sure as Hell didn't give up twenty years and more [or even two or three or even a month] just so you could mouth off about how rotten the United States is."
Good gracious. I think anyone who has spent even a little time here knows who it is that bashes Government all the time. It's not me.
"Oh, you have that right because we guaranteed it to all US citizens and LEGAL residents...call it a freebie from us to you."
No offense, but you admitted that you never saw so much as a blade of grass on a battlefield. So don't think I am moved by the crocodile tear escaping the corner of your eye.
"Between that and the contract I signed for recompense after 40-odd years of true and faithful service to our country, you must be peeing blood."
No, but your mistake is in thinking that because you MAY have served in the military, that people should lick your musty combat boots while you rub them in people's faces.
It's kinky, but not that many people are into it.
The ONLY one lying here on the TFP and on a regular basis is YOU "alprovan". The thing that is so rich with you is that you've lied so much about so many things that you can't even remember what you've said, when and how. That's what Liars do. Get all entangled in their evil little webs.
For the record, I'm glad you know so much about who is whose wife and husband, etc. This also proves you are not only the premier Liar here, your 'facts' are always based on assumptions and emotional guesses.
I am no bi or homosexual as you are, but YOU led us all to Reddit to see what the fuss was. What I found (before you changed your handle quickly to "alprovan") was you, as alprova posting nasty sounding, perverted statements and advice to a confused bisexual kid. You denied it of course and changed your name, saying "someone stole it-alprova". Or have you conveniently forgotten that lie too?
I'm not afraid to check out the evil trashings called Leftist sites to read what lies and propaganda are being spread there about most decent Americans. But I don't stay long. The evil trash that comes out of your mouths (as proof in your rehashed words I posted above) is vomit-inducing. Your hypocrisies are even more disgusting. And your subterfuge/disguise as a "Christian" is an abomination.
Your soul bub, is in deep, deep trouble and that is about all I can say on this subject.
Reaganwasrght -"I've been reading comments here for a long time, more than a year. I've been on the sidelines and don't expect to comment too often."
GO AL, GO! :)
The Swamp Thing's, slimy Gollums weigh in now. What a testament to his 'power' and 'attraction'.
Canarywhopoopsinthecoalmine wrote: "The ONLY one lying here on the TFP and on a regular basis is YOU "alprovan"..."
Repeating the same charge without ever proving the allegation will never make you credible. Who do you think you are...a Catoosa County Prosecutor?
"For the record, I'm glad you know so much about who is whose wife and husband, etc. This also proves you are not only the premier Liar here, your 'facts' are always based on assumptions and emotional guesses."
The most interesting thing to note, is that you never deny being his wife.
"I am no bi or homosexual as you are, but YOU led us all to Reddit to see what the fuss was."
If I were indeed gay or bi-sexual, I'd own up to it without any reservation whatsoever. Why? Your personal opinions and/or judgments are of no consequence.
"What I found (before you changed your handle quickly to "alprovan") was you, as alprova posting nasty sounding, perverted statements and advice to a confused bisexual kid. You denied it of course and changed your name, saying "someone stole it-alprova". Or have you conveniently forgotten that lie too?"
My history on Reddit goes back only 9 months. I thought it was longer. "alprova," whoever he or she may be, goes back much farther in time.
Now, on January 26, 2010, you first posted your charge that I am a "pervert" and a homosexual. You quoted posts from Reddit that you thought were mine.
Any claim that I "changed" my username in response to your posting on January 26, 2010, is a total fabrication on on your part. I registered my username four and a half months prior to the day that you thought you had me by the short hairs.
The facts above are irrefutable. You're standing in a jar of jelly.
"I'm not afraid to check out the evil trashings called Leftist sites to read what lies and propaganda are being spread there about most decent Americans. But I don't stay long."
Of course you don't.
"The evil trash that comes out of your mouths (as proof in your rehashed words I posted above) is vomit-inducing. Your hypocrisies are even more disgusting. And your subterfuge/disguise as a "Christian" is an abomination."
To coin a phrase, who died and made you God? Your opinions are farts in the wind. Your judgments are nothing less than wet farts in a 60 mph headwind. You must love the aroma and the texture.
"Your soul bub, is in deep, deep trouble and that is about all I can say on this subject."
Truly? I think you'd have much more to say, if you had the opportunity to do so. You don't, you won't, and you really need to worry about your own soul, troll.
For those of you interested, here is the text of Arizona Senate Bill 1070 which created all of this hoopla:
I don't see anything in this law that can be considered unconstitutional. It uses the Federal immigration law as a guideline and only authorizes law enforcement to request documentation if some other violation has been committed, i.e., traffic law broken, shoplifting, that kind of thing. It does, interestingly enough, make it illegal to pick up day workers that typically hang around Home Depot, etc, while in a moving vehicle. If you have never been to Arizona, California, Nevada, etc, and not seen the flocks of illegals standing out by the big box home improvement stores early each morning, you probably wouldn't understand the need for this part of the law. I am curious, those of you who oppose the law...for what reason, specifically, do you oppose it?
And for those of you who don't know, Mexico has a similar law...for the entire country...called Article 67:
I support Arizona's new law as does about 2/3 of the rest of America. Now, if we could just get the rest of the states to do the same, we might more funding to spend on healthcare and education.